Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
All is well here.
Especially today. LOL.
MTS.
Good idea.
I just sent the article to the ITC.
Let's not forget.
Both Sammy and Motorola have phones that could be affected by a ban on QCOM chips and phones.
An outright admission of infringement of BRCM's patent.
Loop.
I was merely commenting that the ITC judge appears to be biased toward QCOM.
He wouild stop chips from entering the country, but has no problem with phones (containing those chips) from crossing our borders.
This guy would do well in Washington.
Finally:
"An ITC spokeswoman said Thursday that a decision is expected Friday afternoon."
How could anyone criticize China, if the ITC makes the following ruling:
From one of the articles on the pending decision:
"An ITC administrative law judge last year agreed that Qualcomm's semiconductors violate Broadcom's patent.
But the judge recommended banning imports of the chips, NOT mobile phones that contain the chips."
Couple that with the fact that most phones are made abroad, and it's a slap in the face of Broadcom.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070525/qualcomm_ahead_of_the_bell.html?.v=1
Also, chew on this a little:
"Several handset manufacturers, including Motorola Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., also object to Broadcom's proposed remedy (i.e., ban chips and phones) which would prevent the import of several of their mobile phone models."
DD.
Extremely well put.
Danny.
I could never own Nokia stock, because of their underhanded, arrogant attitude and tactics.
And I'm not talking only about QCOM.
They try to trash even the smallest patent holders to smitherines, including one individual (not a corporation) in their own territory.
This, from a company whose top officer had to pay a $14,000 fine, after unsuccessfuly trying to evade Finnish import taxes on $11,000 in goods.
My point is simply this:
If Nokia paid more attention to increasing it stock price rather than fighting the world for lower royalties, its shareholders and executives would be far happier.
Great news, Nokia.
Now, your stock is only down $36.00 from its 2001 price of $61.00.
Loop.
John Conyers is, and always has been an embarrassment to those who live in Michigan, except Detroit.
This mushmouth wouldn't know a patent if it jumped up and hit him in the face.
Loop.
Any father would love to hear such words from a son or daughter.
I gotta hunch The Big Guy will send him a copy.
Thanks for that one, O'Dog!
It's more a "finger" than a message.
Jim.
IMO, QCOM is already wounded, and they know it. And coming out of the Nokia squabble is critical to their long term success.
With IDCC, they'd have more clout to fight The Pekka, and would also pick up some change from Samsung.
Not to mention they'd have more ammunition to fight the three foreign regulators who are crawling up their back.
Nokia's message is CLEAR: "You don't have the patents!"
DD.
Maybe buyers of Nokia cell phones should dictate what they want to pay.
Given their 40% drop in U.S. sales during the last quarter, they might get the message.
More than likely, investors like QCOM's signing Nortel.
We started to move just after the news was released.
Why does it seem that everyone's ignoring the fight with Broadcom?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AP
Government Panel to Hear Patent Dispute
Wednesday March 14, 7:05 pm ET
Government Panel to Consider Patent Dispute Between Qualcomm, Broadcom
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An unusually large number of companies and government officials will testify next week before the U.S. International Trade Commission on a patent dispute between wireless technology developer Qualcomm Inc. and semiconductor designer Broadcom Corp.
ADVERTISEMENT
The hearing, which was extended from one to two days to accommodate the large number of interested parties, will consider what penalties to impose on Qualcomm for violating a Broadcom patent on technology that helps cell phones conserve battery power when out of cellular network range.
The ITC could bar Qualcomm from importing chips that include the technology, issue a cease and desist order to prevent the company from using or selling products with the technology, or stop the company from importing cellular phones which contain the infringing chips.
The last option has attracted the most attention, as several wireless telecommunications equipment companies and service providers have argued that barring the import of cell phones with the infringing chips would disrupt the wireless industry and could threaten public safety.
According to a filing with the ITC, Verizon Wireless will testify during the March 21-22 hearing that such a step would "cripple the most advanced and most widely deployed broadband technology in the United States," by limiting the availability of handsets compatible with EV-DO wireless technology.
Qualcomm has received a boost from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which said in a separate filing that barring the handsets would have "an adverse effect on ... FEMA's ability to accomplish its mission."
Broadcom, meanwhile, argued that "Qualcomm, the wireless carriers, and device manufacturers have vastly overstated the impact of such an order on their businesses."
Other companies that have requested to appear before the ITC include Motorola Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp., and Samsung Electronics.
The ITC has said it will complete its investigation by May 8.
More than likely, investors don't smell a rat in connection with Fagan's departure.
He's staying on till a replacement is found, which keeps the vermin away from the door.
The whole world's in the toilet this morning:
(As of about 10 minutes ago):
DOW Futures are down 123.
NAZ are down 24.
SP are down 13.
Gold is down 3.50 at 669.
Oil is down .19 at 61.60.
Paris is down 99.
London is down 83.
Tokyo closed down 151.
L2V.
Yeah. Looks like QCOM opened Pandora's Box, and the contents will be pouring out for some time.
One wonders what the institutional holders will do on Monday.
IMO, the Jacobs boyz better think about a total restructuring, from top to bottom, including that oft-reported split between the chip and patent operations.
Jeffrey.
Thousands of companies have backdated stock options, which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
As for stealing trade secrets, did any such theft result in BRCM being issued patents which are currently being litigated?
Some call it "zeal", some call it "facts".
"Additional Patent Actions
Broadcom is now in the final stages of preparing additional cases that go to the heart of its patent infringement disputes with Qualcomm concerning cellular baseband chips.
In March 2007, the U.S. District Court in San Diego is scheduled to try Broadcom's claims that Qualcomm infringes two Broadcom patents relating to Bluetooth® technology in cellular phones.
Then in May 2007, the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif. is scheduled to try Broadcom's claims that Qualcomm infringes three additional Broadcom patents relating to cellular technology.
Qualcomm and Broadcom have other, later-filed patent disputes pending in U.S. District Court in San Diego that are also expected to be tried this year.
Following conclusion of the ITC proceeding, expected this March when the Commission is scheduled to rule on remedies for Qualcomm's infringement,
Broadcom will also litigate in the Santa Ana court the same three patents that were tried last year in the ITC.
Altogether, Broadcom currently has infringement claims from 14 different Broadcom patents awaiting trial against Qualcomm."
Seems to me that, at the moment, it's not QCOM's model which is under attack, but QCOM's actions and patent portfolio.
There is no joy in San Diego, as mighty Qualcomm strikes out again.
Why would anyone hold this stock?
1. First, a loss at the ITC/BRCM, with the ITC currently pondering QCOM's punishment.
2. Second, the recent loss to BRCM/infringement trial.
3. Apparently several more trials in the offing, with QCOM now on the defensive, fighting off additional BRCM claims of infringement.
4. Three countries investigating QCOM's licensing practices.
5. The odds are totally against QCOM re-signing Nokia by April 9, or even by December 2007, IMO.
Oy vey!
Whizzer/Ghors.
Are either of you aware of any clauses in government contracts, that require representations from their suppliers (The recent Nokia Army contract) regarding patents, licenses, and non-infringement?
Nokia results:
Strong Sales Boost Nokia's Profit 19%
By Daniel Thomas
Nokia Corp. Thursday said fourth-quarter net profit rose 19% and overall sales increased but average handset selling prices slipped.
The world's largest mobile-phone maker said it shipped 106 million handsets in the three months ended Dec. 31, a 27% increase from a year earlier, when it shipped 83.7 million units. But the average selling price of handsets declined to €89 from €99, as the company's sales of low-end, lower-margin phones in emerging markets increased.
Nokia reported net income of €1.27 billion ($1.65 billion), or 32 European cents a share, compared with €1.07 billion, or 25 European cents a share, a ...
And how long does Nokia have to take another bite at the rotten apple?
The Special Master's decision was made on December 18, more than 30 days ago.
Gamco.
WOW. This is certainly encouraging!
"Despite Qualcomm's dour outlook of meeting an April deadline, the report foresees a resolution occurring within 12 months."
IQ.
Yeah. The Black Horse deposition was apparently the height of stupidity.
But the Nokia deposition surely would take second place. LOL.
I see the special master's order was dated December 18. But he didn't set a date to reconvene, or for Nokia to state whether or not they would reconvene.
That's 30 days, and counting.
MTS.
Assuming Nokia believed the allegations were true, we all know the culprit should have come from the home office.
At the moment, however, they're still looking for the guy who told the lawyers what to say in the original suit.
JJ.
Looks to me like they got off with a slap on the wrist.
When you pay $400-$500 an hour for lawyers, the lawfirm should have paid penalties to Nokia and the court, as well as IDCC.
But hey, "it wasn't intentional".
Loop.
How can the special master stand by and see Nokia's actions in failing to prepare its witness, and then say it wasn't intentional? (i. e. They only gave him two days notice for an extremely complicated deposition).
Moreover, how can Nokia justify serving-up a guy from the U.K., who clearly didn't have a clue what was going on in the U.S., much less IDCC's Lanham actions which allegedly affected Nokia's fortunes around the world?
DD.
If he pulled that trick on me, at $500 a pop (versus $100 for the I-pod), I wouldn't call him a marketing genius, and I wouldn't buy the 3G phone.
I just sent him an email, "hoping" he doesn't misjudge the public's reaction when they discover they've been had.
IQ:
Since Apple's phone won't go on sale till June, it wouldn't seem likely that a 3G phone would be released until 2008.
In the meantime, buyers would gobble up the inferior I-Phone based on reputation and hype.
I would expect more from Steve Jobs, and hope he doesn't try to hood-wink the public with 2G.
Ghors.
Thanks for clearing the air.
It certainly appears that Nokia is walking through a mine field.
An unusual position for them to be in, given their long history of swash-buckling through the courts, with impunity.
The question now seems to be, would they rather lose to IDCC or QCOM? Or could it be both?
"Essential patent position drives penetration."
Stick that in your legal briefcase, Nokia!
Revlis.
Wouldn't this normally be something for a jury to ponder, rather than trying the case in front of the judge?
And isn't it a little late to be providing support for a summary judgment motion, when they've known that a Goodman deposition would be forthcoming?
Revlis.
If that's true. IDCC would then have to depose Goodman, get his "essential" comments on the record, then file an additional action bringing Goodman's comments to the attention of the court.
Since IDCC has already filed for summary judgment, I fail to see the same connection as you.
Rather, I lean toward a power play to convince Nokia to throw in the towel, or subject itself to embarrassment at the least, and sanctions at the worst.
In any event, I'd still like to hear a comment from one of the lawyers on why IDCC filed a notice of deposition, when I don't believe it is required.
Why would IDCC file a notice of deposition for Goodman, and not file notices on others?